Talk:United Nations (FW)/Archive
I used Britain to make a small comment, someone said I can't use Britain unless I am Richmondappleeater. Why is that, isn't anyone allowed to use blank nations? Thanks, TimeMaster Talk Main Two users, "Richmondappleeater" and "Sun Ling" are going to create a nation called the Empire of Britannia. At this point, the country hasn't been officially added nor been created or edited into this site. It's kind of "on reserve" I guess. It's technically still a blank nation though. United Planets 01:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC) :Is Britannia going to have a justified and well-respected leader or a leader that hates everything? It is because I'd like to use Britain while I still can.Thanks, TimeMaster Talk Main 01:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC) You'll have to ask "Sun Ling" or "Richmondappleeater". Most likely I expect Britannia to be a peaceful nation. United Planets 01:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC) :I agree, but you never know, hopefully Britannia won't act idiotically. Can I have partial control over Russia? Thanks, TimeMaster Talk Main 02:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC) You are free to use Russia until you or another person create a country that takes up Russia, like with any blank nation. I know that "Shockeye7665sc" used to use Russia frequently about a month ago. United Planets 02:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC) :He has Zulkavita. . . Am I allowed to make another country on the remaining Russian territory? Thanks, TimeMaster Talk Main 02:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC) You can have more than one nation. Go ahead and make Russia into a new country. I control both Everett and Iraqistan. United Planets 02:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC) :I'd like to not actually make it my nation, but use it a lot for blank nation matters, and have a reserve for it so nobody can use it. If that doesn't work, Shockeye7665sc should have it, or I'll just take it myself. Also, I was thinking about creating a joint Cascadian-American-Everetti space program. Thanks, TimeMaster Talk Main 02:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC) You can use Russia all you want. I can't really reserve it or else it might as well become your own nation. As for a joint space program, NASA and the Everetti military are willing to aid other nations in developing a space agency. The U.S. space program has fallen apart since the creation of Everett. NASA went under Everetti control, leaving the U.S. without shuttles. America has a simple program now mainly just satellites and rockets and because of it's poor economy, is unable to fund an advanced agency like Everett's or Taiping's. United Planets 02:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Can I make America actually shape up a have a space agency better than Everett's if I wanted to? I am surprised Bush let NASA go under Everett control, Everett could have just made their own. . . So can America have advanced shuttles? Thanks, TimeMaster Talk Main 14:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC) The U.S. can begin developing shuttles and space craft now that it's economy has been boosted. I only kept the U.S. out of the space race because of it's economy and because of the fact that in reality, it is dismantling it's shuttle program in 2011. United Planets 17:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC) :Seriously? Are they keeping up their space programs that include the exploration of other planets, though? Thanks, TimeMaster Talk Main 19:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC) NASA will continue to go on and do stuff, the U.S. is just shutting down the use of shuttles. After the International Space Station is finished, there will be no more shuttle launches. United Planets 20:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC) :But they will be using shuttles later, or never? Thanks, TimeMaster Talk Main 20:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC) They are apparently going back to using rockets like we used in the 1960's. United Planets 20:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC) :I see. In Future World, I can make that not happen? Thanks, TimeMaster Talk Main 20:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC) The New Greek Empire was facing terrorism for Turkish people and invaded Turkey. That ended on half year ago. Why was this brought up? —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • ) 10:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Because A) There have been no cases of terrorism from Turkey, B) The Turkish People have, since the 1990's, been on good terms with Greece and, being a vital trade partner of Greece, would have no reason to attack Greece. C) The Majority of the people of Istanbul and the people of occupied turkey are far more willing to be in Turkey than under Greece, D) Greece has no right, as a NATO member, to invade another NATO member, especially for terrorism that has not occurred and may not be perpetrated by Turkey, E) Even if the terrorism originated from Turkey, Greece should have, like Everett in Pakistan, simply have caught the perpetrators and left, F) There is no legal reason for occupying Istanbul, G) Just because it happened half a year ago does not mean that it makes it fair or just. You deleting everything having to do with the event is nothing short of terrorism. I have restored everything. If you choose to simply delete things that do not favor you again, then I will be perfectly happy to reciprocate. Sun Ling 18:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC) :I'm done with Greek occupation. Greece does not own any part of former Turkey anymore and now only the balkan nations are Greek. Alright, thank you very much. Sun Ling 19:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC) Permanent Security Council Expansion IRL there is debate on the expansion of the Security Council which would include four more nations to the permanent members section. Who wants to join up on the Security Council? Everett, Franco Germany and the USSR are already UN Council members (United Planets, Gatemonger & TimeMaster). If you possess more than one country, only one may become a Permanent Security Council member. I vote to include: *East Asian Federation *Allied States of America *Federal State of Israel *Central America Blank choices if no one wants a position: *India *Australia *Mexico *Brazil Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 19:56, March 5, 2011 (UTC) I'll take it :D -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • ) 21:19, March 5, 2011 (UTC) Of course. Woogers - talk 22:33, March 5, 2011 (UTC) Why not just keep it as "other"? —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • ) 00:48, March 6, 2011 (UTC) What do you mean? Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 00:53, March 6, 2011 (UTC) There is "Other Council". —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • ) 01:18, March 6, 2011 (UTC) Other Council: *A) Lose their position in the council every two years and must be elected back by the General Assembly. *B) Cannot veto UN resolutions. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 01:38, March 6, 2011 (UTC) Could you make the Blank choice of Brazil the UFSA? MineCraftian 00:05, March 8, 2011 (UTC) Well, if it's not too weird, I could put SCOSK up for it. That way there'd be some variety as far as OIS-PAFF balance. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 00:55, March 9, 2011 (UTC) All of the Security Council are major economic and military powers. IRL they are all nuclear nations too. SCOSK is like a tiny random country. As for OIS balance, there is already East Asia and China. There is also a nation that belongs to neither PAFF or OIS (Allied States). Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 01:08, March 9, 2011 (UTC) Yes, but it's a lot more stable than say China or Australia or Brazil or India. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 02:34, March 9, 2011 (UTC) *Cough* Brazil is apart of the UFSA, and now we are on the council *Cough* Officially signed by Grand Marshall MineCraftian ( for more please see Talk or ) 02:39, March 9, 2011 (UTC) Libya We also need all Security Council to vote on Libya's UN No Fly Zone to stop the bombing of civilians. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 16:03, March 7, 2011 (UTC) I know, but I've got to consult with my peer before voting on the issue, because this is still regular Future World, and I have a military alliance to think about in this generation. Woogers - talk 17:04, March 7, 2011 (UTC) LOL. Yarphei has nothing to do with it. What is OIS going to do? Turn on the United Nations when every country is a member? Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 17:14, March 7, 2011 (UTC) Every country minus one. If I were independent, I would vote yes, for the humanitarian value, but I have to confer, just to confirm that it does not go against the grand plan of things. Woogers - talk 17:24, March 7, 2011 (UTC) Well then, while OIS wraps the world in red tape, more people have been blown the fuck up. pwnd Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 17:40, March 7, 2011 (UTC) Think of me as the real world USA. Warn Libya to stop, don't actually do anything. I'm sorry, I really would vote this up, but I have dependencies. Woogers - talk 17:52, March 7, 2011 (UTC) I'll nuke'em if you guys want. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • ) 18:01, March 7, 2011 (UTC) :Be my guest. Nuke them so I can sanction you to death, until your economy collapses again. Woogers - talk 18:20, March 7, 2011 (UTC) ::Interesting being that the ASA can veto the sanction set against itself in the Security Council. How would that play out IRL? Security Council sanctioning a member? Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 18:47, March 7, 2011 (UTC) :::There's always old fashioned non-UN sanctions, which with me being the world's second largest economy would still hurt somewhat. And if I wanted to be really serious, I could blockade the ASA ala Cuba during the Missile Crisis. Woogers - talk 18:52, March 7, 2011 (UTC) :::I see. Nuking them defeats the purpose of trying to stop the deaths of civilians. We just need aerial presence to shoot down Libyan fighters (which are actually being piloted by Algerians). Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 19:06, March 7, 2011 (UTC) ::::Lol hasn't it become obvious that I cannot care less about what the UN says. And EcruFox can take care of us :D -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: Super Warmonkey (talk • ) 19:09, March 7, 2011 (UTC) The PSF is now contemplating an airstrike on Gadhafi's Tripoli fort he is supposedly hiding in. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 18:05, March 7, 2011 (UTC) 1976 No, I didn't veto. I voted no. You all can go along with war if you want. Let the history books say that I didn't agree. Woogers - talk 14:34, April 1, 2011 (UTC) GTR I'm not sure if the Greco-Turkish republic is a good choice for the security council as they only have a small military and no airforce. HORTON11 14:05, June 10, 2011 (UTC) The non-permanent seats are rotated between members of the UN regardless of military might. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 14:12, June 10, 2011 (UTC) Well then that's OK. HORTON11 14:14, June 10, 2011 (UTC) Security council Can Europa take over the GTR's seat in the security council, as it no longer forms a part of Future world? HORTON11 17:03, November 29, 2011 (UTC) Vote Vote. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: (talk • ) 22:20, July 16, 2012 (UTC) Vote. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 22:23, July 16, 2012 (UTC) United States Can the United States - my nation - take over the Allied States's place on the Pernament Security Council, because the Allied States left Future World, and the United States has an great economy, and has an pretty good size military. Sure not like Everetts, EAF, or Australia, but its an good size. Enclavehunter (talk) 01:57, August 1, 2012 (UTC) Mediator elections Gone too far. We need a General Assembly President, a Security Council Chairman, and a United Nations security team. I say we elect one person to do this, and of course, I nominate myself. Feel free to put your name in the bag or vote for someone else. -Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: (talk • ) 18:43, August 1, 2012 (UTC) Voting: *SUPER WARMONKEY **-Signed by Super Warmonkey, please refer to these pages for more: (talk • ) 18:43, August 1, 2012 (UTC) **-Sunkist- (talk) 18:47, August 1, 2012 (UTC) **--[[User:Vivaporius|'"Truth fears no questions..."']] 18:54, August 1, 2012 (UTC) **Enclavehunter (talk) 18:54, August 1, 2012 (UTC)